Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (
-   Indiana Pacers Forum (
-   -   Are we better when TJ doesn't play? (

Cggamer12 11-11-2009 11:22 PM

Are we better when TJ doesn't play?
In tonight's game against Golden State, once Ford went out of the game with his injury, we instantly play better. Earl Watson is playing very well for us, and the backup guards in Price and Head are backing him up very well also.

Would anyone be open to trading TJ maybe? Rumor has it that Philly isn't too happy with Dalenbert, and it's obvious the Pacers could use a little bit of help up front with another big guy. If the deadline came around, why not? I know salaries don't match up quite right, but surely something could be worked out.

Or, would you rather keep him as the starter :banghead: ? Or maybe move Watson to the starter?

It just seems to me that Ford is too eratic of a player, and something should be done with him.


catzhernandez 11-12-2009 05:38 PM

Re: Are we better when TJ doesn't play?
I completely agree. TJ Ford just isn't the kind of player I want on my team any more.

I don't see a trade of TJ Ford for Sammy straight up working for financial reasons, but if we throw in Jeff Foster, who expires for 6mil the same year Sammy expires for 12mil. They throw in a filler like Jason Smith and the 76ers are all over this.

I hate to see Jeff go though, and especially for a guy like Sammy D. :/

InspiredLebowski 11-12-2009 08:04 PM

Re: Are we better when TJ doesn't play?
I want Earl to start and TJ to be 6th man, play an expanded version of the kind of role we have Head in, instant offense basically. Earl's had some really nice games and there's no question the offense runs better with him at the helm. But TJ is far from useless, if he were allowed to play to his strengths he'd be great. He's tried to be a more traditional distributing 1 this year, but it's just not his game. You don't make the most of your talent by forcing them to play to their weaknesses. If TJ's suddenly off the roster, who've we got to potentially close a game but Danny? People overlook TJ's ability and confidence to get us a big clutch bucket.

I want nothing to do with that Dalembert trade. While the salaries are a wash it decreases flexibility. Instead of 2 expirers at around $8mm and $6.5mm we've got one big ass $13mm one. I'm not against trading Jeff, but ONLY if it's a clear benefit talent wise to the franchise, and Dalembert isn't. Jeff's all but a given to have a front office position with the franchise when he's done, and I'd prefer to extend the same type of loyalty to him that he has us.

mateo31 11-16-2009 10:46 PM

Re: Are we better when TJ doesn't play?
No, I personally do not think the Pacers are better without him. He was able to play some solid minutes off the bench against Boston on Saturday night while battling a sore back.

InspiredLebowski 11-17-2009 04:51 AM

Re: Are we better when TJ doesn't play?
Speaking of TJ, is it REALLY a given he picks up his $8.5mm option next year? All obvious reasons say yes, plenty of other FAs that the money would go to first, probably not getting that money on the open market anyway, wouldn't be likely to go to a team more suited for him, etc etc. But, and I'm unaware of the deadlines, I assume he'd have to decline first, but perhaps someone misses out on a target and he finds and opening or would prefer the stability of a nice long-term MLE deal if his role decreases.

Either way, it does nothing to help us in terms of FA money, we'd still be over the cap, but it would (probably) put us under the lux tax, meaning Earl is more than a one year rental maybe. I'm just pondering on it for the financial health of the franchise with the cap/tax decreasing, a lot of fans forget we aren't in great shape next year, at least right now.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy